Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan

by

Stanley Henning

As one who has floated on the periphery of the martial arts community since
I studied Yang-style Taijiquan in Taiwan back in 1970, I relish this opportunity
to come forward and "toss some bricks to entice some jade," and I am
particularly pleased that my "reappearance" can at last take place on
the pages of a serious journal dedicated to high standards in Chinese martial
arts research. This could not have happened even in the most recent past, and
it is still an exception to the norm as we approach the 21st century!

It was precisely because of the appalling state of ignorance I observed
surrounding the history of Chinese martial arts that I first published an
article titled, "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective,"
in the December 1981 issue of Military Affairs (now Journal of
Military History). I selected a scholarly journal to". . . . hopefully
extract them [the Chinese martial arts] from the realm of myth and pave the way
for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research."[1] I selected a journal on military history to emphasize the
fact (not opinion) that the origins of the Chinese martial arts, including
boxing, are rooted in military (not religious) practice.

Now, 13 years later, I notice that ignorance still appears to be the rule
rather than the exception. Why is this?! After reading Paul Crompton's The
Art of T'ai Chi (Rockport, MA: Element, Inc. 1993), I realized that at
least part of the reason for this state of affairs is because the phrase "ignorance
is bliss" is not merely a saying but a fact for some people. After
admitting that the Zhang Sanfeng story is probably myth, Crompton says that, "True
or not, the very existence of the legends tends to elevate T'ai Chi and make it
something to be striven for."[2] Now, isn't that a
meaningful endorsement! In other words, the prestige of Taijiquan rises with
hot air!

I feel reasonably confident that subscribers to this journal are not
striving for Taiji based merely on the existence of legends, as Crompton
describes, but that they might be interested in learning the facts and possible
motives behind the legends associated with Taijiquan. To do so, however,
requires one to view the subject from two levels of thought, one from a martial
arts perspective and one from the broader social milieu in which the martial
arts are but one element.

Actually, the Zhang Sanfeng legend can be viewed as having three phases:
phase I (prior to 1669) merely claims that Zhang was a Taoist immortal;
phase II (after 1669) claims that Zhang originated the "internal"
school of boxing; and phase III (post 1900) claims that Zhang originated
Taijiquan.

The Zhang Sanfeng legend evolved during the Ming period (1368-1644), based
on the close association of early Ming rulers with Taoism and Taoist priests,
whose prophesies had supported the founder of the dynasty. Little is known
about Zhang except that he is described as an eccentric, itinerant hermit with
magic powers, who died once but came back to life, and whose life, based on
varying accounts, spanned a period of over 300 years. Emperor Chengzu
(1423-1404) spent considerable funds to reconstruct war-torn monasteries on
Mount Wudang, Zhang's favorite haunt, and it is said that a 13 year search he
initiated to find Zhang was actually part of an elaborate cover story for a more
urgent effort to located Emperor Jianwen, the victim of a coup staged by
Chengzu. Neither Emperor Jianwen or Zhang were ever found, but finally, in a
move which Paul Crompton would no doubt applaud, Emperor Yingzong canonized the
elusive Zhang in 1459. Throughout this formative phase of the Zhang Sanfeng
legend there is no mention of Zhang's involvement with martial arts.[3] This lack of comment is significant as it was common
practice to include this type of information in dynastic history biographies.

The earliest reference to Zhang Sanfeng as a boxing master is found in the
Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan (1669), composed by Huang Zongxi (1610-1695
A.D.) but, as I pointed out in my 1981 article, the real significance of this
piece at the time lay not so much in its reference to boxing but in its
anti-Manchu symbolism. The Epitaphis the first reference in the history
of Chinese martial arts to describe boxing in terms of a Shaolin or "external"
school versus an "internal" school of boxing, originated by the Taoist
immortal from Mount Wudang, Zhang Sanfeng.[4] While the
Epitaph accomplishes its intended purpose of eulogizing Wang Zhengnan,
it conveys two additional messages as well, one reflecting trends in thought on
boxing and the other political defiance.

The major trend in thought on boxing reflected in the Epitaph is
emphasis on the concept of "stillness" overcoming "movement"
or the mental in relation to physical aspects of boxing. This was not
necessarily a new concept. Yu Dayou advocated it in his manual on staff
fighting (1565),[5] and its basis can be traced to Sun Zi's
Art of War (c. 476 B.C.)[6] This concept involves
taking advantage of an opponent's movement and thus might be perceived as a
defensive approach to countering offensive action. This more disciplined "military"
approach was at variance with some of the more "individualistic" and "flowery"
movements which characterized many popular styles, which were conveniently
described as "Shaolin boxing" in the Epitaph.

While Shaolin was the ideal symbol to represent the more numerous, popular
styles of boxing, this gave rise to serious misunderstandings and, as a result,
later works, beginning with Zhang Kongzhao's boxing manual (1784),[7] attributed the origins of Chinese boxing to Shaolin
Monastery, (there is no mention of Bodhidharma until much later - c. 1900). At
the same time, the mythical Zhang Sanfeng, blessed with sainthood by a Ming
emperor, provided the ideal counterpoint to Shaolin boxing. After all, since
Zhang himself could not be proven to have ever existed let alone anything he was
claimed to have done, it could not hurt to claim he also invented a style of
boxing.

One could say that Huang Zongxi's composition of an epitaph for a boxing
master was, in itself, an act of thumbing his nose at Qing authority, which he
refused to serve, but the symbolism of the "internal" school of boxing
represented by Zhang Sanfeng versus the "external" Shaolin school was
the ultimate act of political defiance through literature. The "external"
school and Shaolin Monastery represented foreign Buddhism, which symbolized the
Manchu aggressors, while the "internal" school and Zhang Sanfeng
represented indigenous Taoism, which symbolized the Chinese, who would overcome
their oppressors. The full extent of Huang's anti-Manchu sentiment is revealed
toward the end of the Epitaph, where Wang Zhengnan's birth and death
dates are recorded with the character combinations of the traditional 60-year
cyclical calender rather than the customary imperial reign title which , if
used, would have indicated recognition of Qing rule.[8] A
noted historian, Huang even included a disclaimer as to the accuracy of the
content of the Epitaph by explaining that he wrote it based on a request
from, and input provided by a Mr. Gao Zhensi.[9] Base
primarily on this piece, more symbolic than factual, an entry was made in the
1733 edition of the Ningbo Gazetteer on Zhang Songqi, a Ming Jiajing
period (1522-1566 A.D.) master of the "internal" school of boxing[10] and an entry was made in the Qing Historical
Manuscripts on Wang Zhengnan.[11] Both these entries
include the Zhang Sanfeng story of the origins of the "internal"
school of boxing.

In 1727, Emperor Yongzheng promulgated an edict which directed local
officials to strictly prohibit individual teaching of "boxing and staff",
as the martial arts were called.[12] Emperor Qianlong
(1736-1795 A.D.) directed a severe literary inquisition which destroyed many
writings from the period 1550-1750. An anthology of Huang Zongxi's writings
containing the Epitaph was proscribed and designated for destruction,
but it survived to become a major source of controversy in the history of
Chinese martial arts.[13] Ever since, boxing styles have
been arbitrarily labeled as being either of the Shaolin or "external"
school, or the Wudang or "internal" school and, ultimately, Taijiquan
was labeled as an "internal" style and identified with the Zhang
Sanfeng legend.

Some sources claim Li Yiyu (1832-1892 A.D.) had referred to Zhang as the
originator of Taijiquan in a hand copied manuscript dated 1867, but that he
dropped the reference in a later manuscript dated 1881.[14]
This later manuscript, which Xu Zhedong first published in 1935, merely states
that the originator is unknown.[15] The temptation to
identify Taijiquan with the "internal" school of boxing and the Zhang
Sanfeng legend is understandable; however, at the time, it could have been too
risky to identity too closely with a well known legendary figure favored by Ming
rulers and associated with the writings of the Ming patriot, Huang Zongxi. The
ferocity of Emperor Qianlong's literary inquisition kept writers more or less in
check for nearly a century beyond his reign. Even the name "Taijiquan"
was suspect and may not have been mentioned outside a small circle of
practitioners until after the revolution of 1911. Qing Emperor Taizong
(1627-1643 A.D.) styled himself "Emperor Taiji", and there were strict
taboos on using the names of emperors.[16] Evidence that
this may have been the case can be seen in the lack of any mention of Taijiquan
in the Qing Unofficial Categorized Extracts (1917), which devotes an
entire volume (196 pages) to stories about martial arts masters and styles.[17] The first ever History of Chinese Physical Culture
(1919) also fails to mention Taijiquan among 69 of the better known contemporary
styles.[18.] Most of our knowledge of Taijiquan dates to
the efforts of Tang Hao (1897-1959 A.D.) and Xu Zhedong during the 1930's.

Many boxing masters were illiterate but most information was reduced to
rhyme, memorized, and passed on by word of mouth in spite of Qing restrictions.
Some who were literate, such as Wu Yuxiang (1812-1880 A.D.) and Li Yiyu,
produced closely held hand written manuals, some of which came to light by the
1930's and were published for appreciation by a larger audience.

The first openly published work associating Zhang Sanfeng with Taijiquan was
Taijiquan Classics (1912), edited by Guan Baiyi. According to Tang Hao,
Guan edited this for Xu Longhou, who had established the Capital Physical
Culture Research Association following the revolution of 1911.[19]
Xu included this material in his Illustrated Explanation of Taijiquan Forms
(1921). The flagrant alteration of details in this book taken from existing
sources reveals a conscious effort to arbitrarily force the Zhang Sanfeng legend
into Taijiquan history. The most transparent part of this effort is reflected
in the substitution of Wang Zongyue (Qianlong period), who is customarily
credited with writing the most important Taijiquan treatise, Taijiquan
Theory, for Wang Zong (only lacking the third character), who is listed as a
mid-Yuan period disciple of the "internal" school of boxing in Huang
Zongxi's Epitaph.[20]

[1]

Xu Longhou studied under Yang Jianhou (1839-1917 A.D.), whose father, Yang
Lucan (1799-1872 A.D.), had first taken the secrets of Taijiquan outside
Chenjiagou village in Henan to Beijing (c. 1860), thus Xu's book, as the
earliest widely available source on Taijiquan, placed the Yang Style to the
forefront at a time when national leaders were strongly endorsing physical
culture programs as part of the overall effort to strengthen national resolve
against imperialistic incursions into China. His book set a precedent of sorts
and those which followed, particularly Yang Style books, tended to copy the
Zhang Sanfeng story of the origins of Taijiquan. In fact, they even went beyond
the call of duty by attributing portions of Wu Yuxiang's writings to Zhang
Sanfeng.[21] After all, what self respecting founder
would fail to pass on a few pearls of wisdom? Wu was merely the founder's ghost
writer. Anyway, who would know? Actually, the most important Yang Style "classics"
are from Wu's writings, except for Wang Zongyue's Taijiquan Theory, and
there are some who believe Wu even penned it as well as coined the term "Taijiquan"
around 1854, but that is another story![22]

Why does there appear to be such concern to associate Taijiquan with the
Zhang Sanfeng legend between 1912 and 1921, over 60 years after the style of
boxing practiced in Chenjiagou village had been given the name "Taijiquan"
and exposed to the big city? The answer may lie in a combination of events
which began with the earliest reference to "The Dharma" or Bodhidharma
as the originator of Shaolin boxing in a widely popular novel, The Travels
of Lao Ts'an first published in Illustrated Fiction Magazine between
1904-1907.[23] This was soon followed by a book titled
Shaolin School Methods, which appeared as a series in a Shanghai
newspaper in 1910.[24] This book, of unknown origin but
written in an anti-Manchu secret society tone, expanded on the Bodhidharma story
and, in 1915, was altered further and published as Secrets of Shaolin Boxing
under the pseudonym, Master of the Study of Self Respect (probably an
allusion to anti-Manchu and anti-imperialist feelings).[25]
According to Tang Hao, this book was so popular that nearly 30 printings
had flooded the market by 1919, and it has influenced other authors ever since,
beginning with Guo Shaoyu's History of Chinese Physical Culture (1919),
which was the first popular Chinese book on this subject.[26]
It is not difficult to see how Taijiquan masters may have felt hard pressed
to compete for popularity against such a publicity blitz in an increasingly
commercialized environment. Under these conditions, Zhang Sanfeng was a
made-to-order counterpoint to Bodhidharma.

The Zhang Sanfeng legend clearly has popular appeal and, at first glance,
even some plausibility for the man on the street. This public relations aspect
combines with the fact that Taijiquan, unlike many other styles, appears to have
responded more effectively to the changing demands in society over the past
century, and thus has evolved from a little known fighting art practiced in a
country village to a worldwide phenomenon.

A lot of the information necessary to make intelligent statements about the
origins of Taijiquan and other aspects of the Chinese martial arts is out there
but, even more importantly, it needs to be interpreted with a discerning eye and
more knowledge of the social environment in which the martial arts have
flourished.

[3.] Seidel, Anna, "A Taoist Immortal of the Ming
Dynasty: Chang San-feng", in W.T. de Bary & The Conference on Ming
Thought, eds., Self and Society in Ming Thought (N.Y.: Columbia
University Press, 1970, pp. 483-531. Most comprehensive, although not always
accurate, paper on this subject in English. Provides good coverage of phase I
of the legend, concluding that, "His biographies and legends lack even the
faintest allusion to his being a boxing master . . ." (p. 484)

[4.]Ibid., pp. 504-505, claims earliest
reference is in Ningbo Gazetteer [Ch.], 1560 edition has no such entry.
1733 revised edition entry is based on Huang Zongxi's Epitaph [Ch.] c.
1669) and Huang Baijia's
Internal Boxing Methods [Ch.]. p. 505, claims Zhang Sanfeng chosen as
patron saint of "esoteric" school as counterpoint to Bodhidharma's
role in Shaolin school. This did not happen until 20th century.